How Can Nonprofits Accommodate To External Influences? Some Field Observations
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Ruth McCambridge, former editor of Nonprofit Quarterly, points out “Our organizational management, (board) styles and structures are affected by the four external influences.” See paraphrased bolded items below. (http://bit.ly/1HSwrZY) Following are some specific field observations I have encountered that, over several decades, support her model relating to external influences.
The nonprofit’s mission field: McCambridge points out that arts organizations have dual have leadership models—artistic and business. However, unless specified which has final authority, the system can lead to continual conflict between the two; the artistic leader wanting the most authentic productions and the business leader concerned with budget realities. The final authority is often determined by which leader has the CEO title.
Nonprofit Boardroom Elephants and the ‘Nice Guy’ Syndrome: A Complex Problem?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
At coffee a friend serving on a nonprofit board reported plans to resign from the board shortly. His complaints centered on the board’s unwillingness to take critical actions necessary to help the organization grow.
In specific, the board failed to take any action to remove a board member who wasn’t attending meetings, but he refused to resign. His three-year term had another 18 months to go, and the board had a bylaws obligation to summarily remove him from the board. However, a majority of board members decided such action would hurt the board member’s feelings. They were unwittingly accepting the “nice-guy” approach in place of taking professional action. (more…)
Identify Nonprofit Staff Groups To Help Drive Organizational Change.
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Nonprofit executive directors Board Members tend to think of the staff professionals as individual contributors. These individuals are persons who mainly work on their own and but increasingly also have to contribute as team players – for instance, counselors, health care professionals, curators and university faculty. However, many executive directors fail to recognize that these individual contributors can be grouped according to identifiable types, with differing work-value outlooks. Each group needs to be motivated differently to drive change in today’s fast moving social, political and technological environments. Nonprofit board members can use these groupings in their responsibilities for overseeing promotable staff members.
Whenever the time is ripe to select a new nonprofit CEO, I think of the old joke that says “…every person looks for the perfect spouse… meanwhile, they get married.” By the same token, nonprofit board members seek perfection in a new ED/CEO– and find that they must “settle” for less. But there are certain definitive attributes that are essential to his/her success in running the organization. With the pressures of increasingly slim budgets, fund development challenges and the difficulty of recruiting high quality employees, the 21st century ED/CEO must be action oriented and come equipped with at least a modicum of the following abilities: *
Visionary: It’s all about the organization’s future. The ED/elect should bring or at least begin to cultivate a deep concept of where the nonprofit is, should be and what the trajectory should look like. He/she can do that by immersing himself in the mission field—reading widely and remaining in contact with regional and national leaders in the field. A state-of-the-art CEO should be available for consultation with colleagues with similar issues. Included in his span of vision are potential disruptions that might affect the organization– and how to help the board focus on and implement appropriate change.
Board Enabler: The new chief understands the limits of his/h operational responsibilities and the governance overview role required by the board. To build trusting relationships with the board, she/h realizes that transparency is key.
Fundraiser: The optimal fundraising relationship is a partnership between the CEO and the board. Board members must be alert to outside funding opportunities and the CEO, alert to funding opportunities from sources related to the mission field. Once an opportunity is identified, the CEO and the board work closely together to develop a proposal and to meet with the donor(s). If the organization has a development director, the person filling the position must be brought into the discussion at an early stage.
Communicator: To be organizationally successful, the Board and CEO must be in a position to interact with a variety of stakeholders: government officials, donors, vendors, clients and their surrogates, foundations, etc. One area in which many nonprofit CEOs need improvement is communications with the business community. It goes beyond simply joining the Rotary or Chamber groups. Nonprofit CEOs must have rudimentary knowledge of many businesses so they can interact intelligently with business leaders they encounter in development efforts. This information can be about specific organizations they are approaching or general knowledge acquired from perusing publications like Business Week or The Wall Street Journal.
Spokesperson: Although some suggest that the volunteer president must be the spokesperson for the nonprofit, I suggest that the Executive Director/CEO must hold this position for several reasons.
If a volunteer becomes a president/CEO, he/s may acquire some liabilities that other directors don’t have. The executive director must be the CEO. Some nonprofits have given the chief operating person the title of president/ceo and the senior board person, board chair. This eliminates confusion that often surrounds the ED title when contacting business or government officials.
The volunteer president does not work in the organization daily and does not understand its nuances as well as the CEO.
In a crisis situation, the media may contact board members. It should be clearly understood that the CEO is the only person to comment to the media.
In ceremonial situations, it may be appropriate for the president to be a spokesperson.
The CEO needs to become the “face” of the organization because volunteer presidents come and go, some annually.
Team Builder: She/h needs to build a strong management team, some of whom, over time, may become capable of becoming an Executive Director. The CEO, as head of the management team, needs to be sure all staff are performing well with some being bench strength to move to higher positions.
Tone Setter: The CEO needs to set an ethical tone where everybody feels free to express their suggestions for improving the organization. This tone, in various ways, must also be communicated to all stakeholders by the Executive Director..
Performance Monitor: Hopefully the board has a rigorous and fair system for evaluating the CEO and the organization, and the values of this system are embedded in staff evaluations.
In the best of all nonprofit worlds, every board member is an independent agent whose ability to make critical decisions on behalf of the organization is regularly uncompromised by outside pressures. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. Based on field observation I have concluded that questionable practices can plague nonprofit boards when social or political pressures are brought to bear on a board member. In governance terms nonprofit decision-makers should be “outside directors,” not overtly or covertly susceptible to management or board colleague personal pressures.
Discerning recruitment committees can screen candidates to be certain they are not subject to influences that might impair their judgment as board members. Lack of independence could easily divide and perhaps polarize the board as has happened in our country’s Congress. A candidate who is “sponsored” by a major donor and maintains personal ties with the donor can create a “hornet’s nest” for the recruitment group. There are no easy solutions to these problems.
Some typical examples of the apparent loss of independence:
• The legacy challenge. A board member is appointed to the board largely because his family has served on the board for generations, not because of his talent and/or commitment to the mission. If there are too many “legacies” on board, the optimal range of perspectives is narrowed resulting in inadequate discussion of potential actions. • The chief executive does not keep a professional social distance from the board chair and/or other board members. For example, their families are frequently engaged socially. • In “prestige boards,” a business or professional person persuades the board to accept a candidate who is business associate because he/she is a “good person” who needs board experience for networking purposes. • A candidate for a directorship has significantly caused problems on another nonprofit board, but a current active board member, a friend of the candidate, wants him to be elected so that he/she can be given a second chance.
What Can Be Done? Sometimes Nothing: But:
• Clearly acknowledge the challenges where they exist and then seek new candidates without such encumbering ties. • If possible, try to confront the situation directly, if it does not cause a schism within your board. Develop a policy, not a rule, which allows someone to open discussion if one of these issues arises. • Make independence one of the characteristics desired for board candidates and clearly acknowledge what is meant by the term. • A nonprofit board member can serve only one master—the organization’s mission. On the other hand, no nonprofit board that I have encountered is totally independent. As long as a board has enough members who are not beholden to other interests there should be no impairment in achieving the organization’s goals.
This type of subtle influence is rarely discussed, and to my knowledge, has never been researched. But, if left unattended by nonprofit recruitment committees, it can lead to political board schisms that seriously impact the organization.
Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?
By: Eugene H. Fram. Free Digital Image
Yes, if the organization has the following structure:
Board With A Volunteer Chairperson Full-time President/CEO With Full Authority for Operations Executive Director for Division A Executive Director for Division B
However this structure can be confusing to persons in the nonprofit arena. The executive director should have final authority for all operational matters related to the organization, except those designated for the board in the bylaws. For example, pensions plan changes.
The big question is who carries the CEO title. Some nonprofits, in their early stages, have a volunteer, part-time, President/CEO and an operational Executive Director. This signifies the volunteer, representing the will of the board, can have final authority in implementing board operational policies/strategies. This is not a good structure because the CEO title might lead to the volunteer having liabilities that other board members don’t have.
A Nonprofit Paradox: Weak Leadership Pool, Positive Organizational Outcomes?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
It happens: one or both of the two nonprofit engines—governance and/or management — sputters out, yet the organization continues to meet its goals and deliver adequate service to its constituents. Some examples: a child placement agency manages to maintain the quality of its oversight while struggling to deal with an admittedly inept board and CEO. Another example: An ineffective volunteer board at a youth center, meeting quarterly for a couple of hours, allows the CEO to really manage the board and to motivate the staff. The CEO realized she and the agency were in dangerous positions without an innovative board providing standard oversight, although client services were positive. (more…)
Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
A study of business boards by Stanford University yielded the following results:
Only one-third (36%) of board members surveyed believe their company does a very good job of accurately assessing the performance of individual directors.
Almost half (46%) believe their boards tolerate dissent.
Nearly three quarters of directors (74%) agree that board directors allow personal or past experiences to dominate their perspective.
And, perhaps most significant, the typical director believes that at least one fellow director should be removed from the board because the individual is not effective. *
Given that many of these business boards have the financial power to employ legal counsel or consultants to conduct a rigorous impartial evaluation, what can a nonprofit board, with limited financial resources, do to make sure that the board and its members are being fairly evaluated to drive change?
A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
“One of the key functions of a (nonprofit) board of directors is to oversee (not micromanage) the CEO, ensuring that (stakeholders) are getting the most from their investments.” * State and Federal compliance regulations have been developed to make certain that boards have an obligation to represent stakeholders. These include the community, donors, foundations and clients, but not the staff as some nonprofit boards have come to believe. The failure of nonprofit boards, as reported frequently by local national blog sites, show something is wrong. Following are some inherent problems that derail boards from focusing on impacts.
Solarwinds and Target and others may seem far afield from the concerns of nonprofit directors, except for the giants in the area, like AARP. However, think about this hypothetical scenario.
A group of high school students hacked into the computer system of a local nonprofit offering mental health services and gain access to records of clients, perhaps even placing some of the records of other teenagers on the internet. Considering the recent introductions of new AI tools, the power of immature teenagers and adults to initiate Cyber Security (CS) problems seems unlimited.
What due care obligations did the board need to forestall the above situation? A move to recruit directors with special expertise in information technology or cyber security would be nonproductive. A nonprofit director has broader responsibilities such as the overview of management, approval of budgets, fostering management and staff growth etc. Similarly, when social media became a prominent issue a few years ago, boards debated the advisability of seeking directors with that specific kind of background. Today, a consultant with management is likely to provide guidance to directors on these issues.
After listening to a group of cyber security experts discuss for-profit challenges in this area, I have the following suggestions on how nonprofit boards might respond to similar types of challenges.
1. Carefully “wall off” all confidential information – Have management be certain that private information such as health records, are encrypted and separated from operating data that may be considered public in a nonprofit environment. 2. Review D&O and other liability policies – Determine whether or not the D&O policy protects directors and managers from CS intrusions. (It likely does not, but I understand that some carriers may offer some protection along with smaller policies.) It is clear that most general liability policies do not protect the organization against CS. 3. Board Encouragement – Devote some meeting time, perhaps 10 minutes, to a discussion of the CS topics so that management and staff are aware of the board’s concerns on the subject and will take action when necessary. Appropriate due care actions like frequent password changes should become routine. Some checklists are available online, suggesting questions directors might pose to raise awareness on the topic and avoid potential CS breaches. 4. Can third party payer help? – Many nonprofits deal with third party payers with sophisticated CS systems and may offer the nonprofit some advice or assistance. 5. Education and training of employers – Many CS crimes have been successful because employees have violated or forget to effectively protect their working accounts and information. Proper education and training can help reduce these types of lapses. 6. Finance & Audit Committees – Recent data indicate that only 20% of nonprofits have a CS vulnerability assessment in place and only about the same proportion have a plan in place should a CS breach take place . * Due care responsibilities seem to be missing among a large portion of nonprofits.
If a nonprofit, like the one described, is attacked, not only will records be compromised, but also the reputation of the agency will be destroyed, probably along with the nonprofit organization itself. SolarWinds and Target may be able to survive such an attack, but the typical nonprofit may not.
Nonprofit Management 